The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held January 14, 2015 were reviewed. Commissioner Randall made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

PUBLIC HEARING | ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR 74 EAST 300 SOUTH AND 337 EAST 400 SOUTH - Consider a zone map amendment for property located at 74 East 300 South and 337 East 400 South from R-L (Residential-Low) to C-M (Commercial-Medium) for Walton Village Town Home Development. Taylor Spendlove, Brighton Centerville LLC, Applicant.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the applications before the Planning Commission this evening include a Zoning Code Text Amendment and a Zone Map Amendment. The applicant does have a vision for the property and would like to share this preliminary concept. However, the Commission is not reviewing the development concept because there is no official application for development at this time. This is just a look at what may be possible on the proposed site.

Nate Pugsley, Brighton Homes, said after reviewing the staff report they have decided to formally withdraw their petition for the increased lot-width and the floor area ratio. They are still seeking approval for a change in the building height from 25 feet to 35 feet. Mr. Pugsley presented their preliminary concept plan for the proposed site (85-unit mixed-use development with 220 parking spaces). This is simply an idea of what may be possible with the proposed text amendment. Brighton Homes intends to build a quality, high end mixed-use development. He explained Mr. Obrien would like to sell his property as a retirement strategy and Brighton Homes is interested in investing in this deteriorating property. The proposed preliminary concept would include residential with vaulted ceilings and high end fixtures. The base price for these owner occupied units would start around $210,000. The development would include a homeowners association and management company to maintain the development. He said the proposed concept would remove the increasing blight of the property and this is a great opportunity to redevelop this area. He said they look forward to hearing from the Commission and the public so that this concept can evolve and change for the better.

Mr. Snyder reported the applicant desires to redevelop several properties along the east side of Main Street between 300 South and Porter Lane. As mentioned, the applicant has formally withdrawn their request for increased lot-width and floor area ratios. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the zoning text of the South Main Street Corridor Overlay Plan (SMSC) to change the building height calculations to a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet on the east side of Main Street. The proposed site is located within the Traditional Main Street District. The proposed change would effectively treat the east and west sides of Main Street equally. The east side of Main Street was originally amended due to public outcry revolving around UTA’s light rail plans for Main Street.

Mr. Snyder explained the SMSC allows for mixed-use including commercial on Main Street and residential above and behind the commercial use. This concept is already part of the SMSC and permitted given the developer meets the parameters. Currently, ordinances allow 2-story buildings up to a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet. Staff is supportive of the building height request (3-story buildings with a 35-foot maximum) as the General Plan language desires a bulking and massing of buildings to better facilitate a mixed-use development pattern. The request for a 35-foot building height does not create a conflict on the east side of Main Street because the existing Residential-Low (R-L) Zone just east of the proposed site already allows a maximum building height of 35 feet. He also explained the need to allow for enough return on a property to promote redevelopment.

Mr. Snyder reported the applicant is also requesting to include two (2) adjacent properties located to the east of the proposed site (one on 300 South and one on Porter Lane) and rezone these properties from Residential-Low (R-L) to Commercial-Medium (C-M). Currently, each of these adjacent properties contain a small home. If rezoned, the applicant plans to demolish these homes and include them in the layout of their proposed redevelopment plan. Mr. Snyder explained the proposed rezone is consistent with the language of the General Plan. He also explained how current zoning has been applied for this super block. The proposed rezone properties are located within the half-block system per Pattern 2, a super block. Staff believes the proposed rezone does not change or add to the existing transitional land use pattern from arterial commercial to single-family neighborhood. In addition, the current Zoning Ordinance contains regulations regarding setbacks, buffering, and so forth to minimize conflicts between these two zones.

Mr. Snyder explained the proposed zone map amendment has two elements, the rezone (R-L to C-M), and the expansion of the SMSC Overlay District to include the subject properties. If the expansion is not allowed then the subject properties would not be eligible for mixed-use development. Upon review of the published newspaper notice, it was found that the rezone was the only element covered by the notice. The Commission may choose to consider the rezone at this time, but the expansion of the SMSC will need to be properly noticed and considered at a later date. The Commission may also choose to table this item until both elements can be considered together.

Commissioner Johnson asked if the difference in building height on the west side of Main Street and the east side of Main Street holds true for the entire SMSC District. He also asked for more detail as to why the original 35-foot building height on the east side was diminished to the current 25-foot maximum. Commissioner Randall questioned if the difference in building height (west vs. east) had anything to do with the elevation change on the west side. There is a significant elevation drop on the west side of Main Street. Commissioner Merrill questioned the building height of the office building on Center Street and Main. He also asked for the building height of City Hall.

Mr. Snyder said the difference in building height is only applied in the City Center District and the Traditional District. Staff is supportive of and suggests the building height adjustment (up to the 35-foot maximum) be applied to both districts. He explained there was a significant amount of consternation about UTA bringing light rail down Main Street. It was believed that mixed-use was a catalyst for light rail. In order to show the public that light rail was not the City’s intention the City Council chose to lower the building height, and subsequent mixed-use intensity, to a maximum building height of 25-feet. In addition, the City Council took all reference to light rail out of City ordinances. He said he believes the elevation drop on the west side was probably a component of keeping the west side building height at 35 feet. He also said he believes the Center Street office building to be anywhere between 20-30 feet and City Hall is around the 35-foot height.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.

Ann Fadel said she was supportive of the 35-foot building height on the west side until the building next to her business was built. Now she knows that 35 feet is too high and opposes the increase. She also suggested the west side be amended and lowered to 25 feet.

Grant Bradfield said he understands that urban sprawl is something that needs to be dealt with and that Centerville needs housing options but he said the current zoning is in place for a reason. He said 25 feet on the east side is adequate. It does not need to be raised so Brighton Homes can build larger units. He said 35 feet will destroy the view for surrounding neighbors. He also expressed concern with the amount of cars that would be brought to the area with this many residential units.

Spencer Summerhays said he is a developer by trade. He understands both sides of the argument. He is concerned with the proposed rezone. He said it appears there is some spot zoning going on and said it sounds as though the current standards were put in place after a lot of previous debate and input.

Robin Mecham said she was present during the SMSC District discussions. She said there was a significant amount of public input at that time. She said staff suggested 35 feet at that time and the citizens rejected it for many reasons, thus changing the height to 25 feet. She said citizens do not have the same vision as staff for a building lined Main Street. She said citizens would like to see more tree lined streets and single-family residential. She said 25 feet is adequate. She said Main Street should be brought back to residential instead of creating more commercial. She said the small homes in the neighborhoods to the east will be dwarfed by these tall commercial buildings. She suggested Brighton Homes demolish the two smaller homes and build nice medium-sized single-family homes as a transition to the existing neighborhoods. She is not in favor of rezoning these two properties to C-M. She said the SMSC was created to revitalize Main Street, not the center of the block. She said commercial uses should be kept fronting on Main Street. She said the elevation change on the west side was a factor for keeping the building height at 35 feet. She said Brighton Homes can still get a quality development at 25 feet. She also said the City is working on creating a Historic District in this area and said the proposed concepts will destroy the historic nature of this area.

Paula Tanabe said she owns the property at 337 East 400 South. She said the notice lists her property as the parcel to be rezoned. She said she has not been approached by anyone and this property cannot be rezoned if it is not properly noticed and she, as the property owner, has not been informed.

Mr. Snyder explained the actual physical address of the property to be rezoned is 91 East 400 South, but when a rezone petition and subsequent noticed is posted it must contain the address as listed on the County record. The County record shows this property at 337 East. The County record is not accurate, but staff is required by law to post it as such.

Lee Skabelund said he moved to Centerville 25 years ago because of the small community and open atmosphere. He said he has been a supporter of trees for many years and Centerville has great trees and great mountain views. He said he also moved to Centerville because it was almost built out. He is concerned with the current trend and proposals. He said larger buildings will bring congestion and will destroy the neighborhoods character. He expressed concern with traffic. He said it is already difficult to travel and cross both Parrish Lane and Main Street. The proposed concepts will only increase that congestion. He also said this type of density and congestion will invariably bring law enforcement concerns. He suggested density and intensity be lowered.

Brad Nance said he does not support the 35-foot building height. He said it is possible to get adequate return on the property and a quality development with the current 25-foot maximum. He said the current zoning regulations are the best for the property right now. He said citizens do not want to see buildings outside their windows. He also said the half-block should be interpreted as if there were a 100 East Street through this super block. That would match all the other blocks within the District and would diminish the C-M area providing for more residential and a greater buffer.

Jeff Warren said he is opposed to both the building height increase and the rezone of the two parcels. He is disappointed that staff is so out of touch with what the current citizens desire. He said the majority of the room is opposed to these proposals.

Dale McIntire said Centerville’s Landmark Commission is currently in the process of creating the Deuel Creek Historic District which includes this area. He said 220 parking spaces is not part of historic Centerville.

Brent Hintze said it is his understanding that only landowners can petition for a rezone. He said Brighton Homes is not the current landowner, so why are they able to apply for such a change? He said he agrees the proposals should not be granted. The Planning Commission should stay with the current zoning standards. He said Brighton Homes needs to prepare a plan that fits within the current standards.

Kenny Mecham said Brighton Homes has already purchased the parcel directly across from his home and he the property owner was told to not tell anyone. He said 220 parking spaces is similar to Dick’s Market, who has 232 parking stalls (counted them himself). He said this is too much traffic and parking for this area of the city.

Doug Cobabe said he does not agree with the half block interpretation. He said there is somewhat of a cul-de-sac within the super block which could diminish the half block interpretation. He said the super block should not be considered allowing the half block to push all the way to 100 East. He said at the very least 100 East should be the block mark thus pushing the half block back toward the west.

Jennifer Turnblom said she is also against the 35-foot building height. She says she lives in the shadow of the office building on Center Street 300 South and Main. This building is less than the 35-foot proposal and it’s too tall. She said it blocks the sun and it is even difficult to park in her driveway because there is not enough buffer between this commercial use and her residential use. She said commercial uses should not be extended to the east.

Ed Schirner said he lives across from this proposed redevelopment and does not want to see 35-foot buildings. He would rather see trees. He said he moved here for the small community and this will destroy the small community feel. He said units such as these eventually become rentals which will cause the development to deteriorate over time.

Spencer Dredge said the rezone is just a way to increase the size of the development and raise density. He said he does not agree with 80+ units, 220 parking spaces, and commercial uses in addition. He said it is clear the public is against these proposals. He said he realizes cities need to grow and redevelop, but not at this level.

Michael Randall said he is concerned with the proposed redevelopment. He said he is not against commercial uses but is opposed to raising the building height. The 25-foot allowance was set to deal with many of the public’s concerns and after much discussion. He said the elevation drop on the west side of Main makes the 35-foot allowance reasonable, but it is not reasonable on the east side of Main Street. He said he disagrees with the proposed rezone because it pushes commercial too far to the east.

Mike Carbaugh said he is against the 35-foot height. He does not agree with that many more people and cars in this neighborhood.

Melissa Thomas said there are a lot of people who are invested in this area and love the current character of the neighborhood. She said allowing this height next to these darling, little older homes will destroy the historic area. She said this area is already seeing a rise in rentals and allowing additional condos will only worsen that rate. She said it is harder to attract homeowners who will take on an older home when there are giant apartments next door. She said the City should be looking for ways to preserve this historic area and maintain the charm of the neighborhood.

Pamela Sorensen said she is extremely concerned. She said an 85-unit development with 220 cars is too great. She said there is no guarantee these units will remain owner occupied, rentals will come. She said she is against all proposals that have been presented this evening. She feels there are better ways to redevelop this site. She said they moved here from California for the small community and cottage homes. She said they have put their soul, money, sweat and tears into this area and do not want to see such a development.

Stephanie Ivie, City Councilwoman, thanked Brighton Homes for listening to the public’s concerns. She is concerned with both the building height and the rezone proposals. She said 35 feet is too high. She said it may be true that residential zones allow for 35-foot homes, but there are no homes within the adjoining neighborhoods that have a 35-foot structure. She said this proposed redevelopment is close to Centerville schools and will add traffic and congestion to the neighborhood putting students at risk. She said 220 parking spaced is too much. She said she is concerned with extending the commercial uses any more to the east. She said it would behoove the City to go back and reconsider the SMSC Plan. She said it has been a struggle to get any mixed-use or commercial on Main Street. Perhaps it is time to revisit the plan and look at more realistic uses. She said mixed-use may not be the best option and she will not vote for it.

Bob Ballesteros said he does not agree with the 35-foot height. He asked if the height is allowed and this development does not come to pass is there a negative impact to the city? Will another development come with even greater density? He said this type of development should be built elsewhere.

Gary Obrien said he has owned Obrien Glass for 43 years. He is 73 years old and looking to retire. Selling this property is his retirement. He said he has slowly acquired 5 properties over the years and has generated 4 million in sales tax for the city. He said he paid $13,700 in property tax this past year and the County keeps raising his taxes because this is valuable property. He said he has attended all meetings regarding the SMSC plan including the meeting that lowered the building height to 25 feet. He said commercial uses only will not work to recoup the value of this property. He said mixed-use will work but only if the 35-foot height is allowed.

Bret Millburn, County Commissioner said he lives in this neighborhood. He agreed that some type of redevelopment is needed, but the key is to find the right development. He said staff mentioned there is no official plan for this site, but as presented by Brighton Homes it appears there is a plan. He said if this is the plan, then he is not in favor. He said he does not believe staff should be advocating on behalf of the developer when it comes to putting more money in their pockets. He suggested staff remain transparent. He said he has heard that Brighton Homes is under contract to purchase these properties and he has also heard that Brighton Homes has already purchased these properties; which is it? He said he too would like to know who has a legal right to petition the City regarding these properties. He said he would like to know more about the type of commercial uses that would be allowed (i.e., office, retail, restaurant, etc.). He said it costs a city more to bring in a resident than it does to allow commercial. He said this type of development is too dense for this neighborhood and will negatively impact traffic.

Jesse Barrus said he moved to Centerville for the same reasons as others; small community. He said he is a designer by trade and is given challenges every day by his clients to design within their set parameters. It is his job to do the best he can within those parameters. He said Brighton Homes has a great opportunity here to listen to their clients, not only the Obrien’s but Centerville citizens as well. He said Brighton Homes should not be changing to the parameters but rather creating within those parameters. He said any design should enhance its surroundings, if it does not then it is a poor design.

Sherri Zaugg said she is not against commercial development, but she is against high density. She said this neighborhood is quaint and cozy and believes a small business, such as a coffee shop, could be a great fit for this area. She said people want to live here and if nice residential homes are built, people will come. She said small commercial could front Main Street with reasonable smaller homes behind.

Justin Cozad said he owns 3 properties within this area. He said he would like to keep this historic area intact. He is opposed to the 35-foot height and the high density. He said he is not against Mr. Obrien selling his property and agrees Mr. Obrien should be able to retire, but the citizens also have a right to maintain a nice neighborhood.

Cheylynn Hayman said staff’s vision of Main Street is not her vision or the vision of the citizens present. She does not agree with a building lined street with commercial uses down the entire length. She said if the City allows the 35-foot height they cannot take it back once they realize it was a poor decision.

Christina Wilcox said she lives on an acre in an 1860 family owned home. She does not want to look up at a 35-foot building and she does not want the residents living in the top of that building to be looking down on her. She agrees redevelopment is necessary for this area, but does not agree with the 85-unit proposal. She agrees this would bring significant traffic and congestion to this neighborhood and the city. She would like to see a more open development with residential.

Dale Engberson said he is working with Brighton Homes and has found them to be nothing but gentleman. He said staff has done their job to interpret the ordinances as they read them. He said Brighton Homes has a right to ask for amendments. If the Commission denied the requests, Brighton Homes could still build a mixed-use development on this site, just at a lower building height. He said Brighton Homes does quality work and anything they choose to build will be well done.

Stephanie Mecham said Mr. Obrien should be able to sale sell his property but the City does not have to grant the rezone. Mr. Obrien should sell his property as is. She said if this rezone is granted it could easily extend to other properties in the area including hers. She does not want a McDonalds on her property.

Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing regarding the zone code text amendment for the proposed 35-foot building height.

Chair Hirschi said the public hearing regarding the rezone will be continued since there were some noticing issue and this item will be returning for further review and approval at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Snyder responded to the public’s comments. He said any property owner or property owner’s agent can petition the City for text amendments and/or rezones. In this case, Brighton Homes is the agent for the property owner. He explained the half-block application is an interpretation. The neighborhood plan policy does not call out a specific square footage, linear footage, or other specific calculation for the half block. He reviewed the pattern of zoning with regard to the half block and found Pattern 1 and Pattern 2 had been previously employed. According to his interpretation, the proposed rezone is consistent with these patterns.

Mr. Snyder said it is unfair to state that staff is advocating for the financial benefit of the developer. He said the County has an entire economic arm devoted to redevelopment, revenue streams, tax streams, etc. He said he is not working to provide the developer with a significant return, but as a planner, he is required to consider economic values just as the County is. He said the General Plan encourages a reinvestment in Main Street – a plan adopted by the City Council, of which he is not a voting member. He said he does not know what Brighton Homes requires for their bottom line. All he knows is that reinvestment in Main Street is an issue and economics plays a significant role.

Mr. Snyder said he too is not completely comfortable with Brighton Homes’ preliminary concept. He said he questions whether the plan meets all the applicable zoning requirements, but that he is unable to comment on those issues as there is no formal application for development at this time. He said after listening to this crowd, Brighton Homes may choose to completely change their concept. Once an official application is on the table, then staff will weigh in.

Mr. Snyder said the property cannot be left as is. In its current state the property will continue to deteriorate. It was mentioned that this area is seeing more and more rentals. He said this is likely do due to the deteriorating nature of the neighborhood. He said reinvestment in Main Street will add to the stabilization of the neighborhood. He agreed this is a historic district and explained the city is creating policies to preserve the historic nature by allowing reinvestment in these properties including ideas such as infill and flag lot developments. These types of options will preserve this area and provide additional housing options; revitalizing the neighborhood. He said as a planner he looks toward the future. He said in 30 years our children, grand-children, and new move-ins will have a different view of this neighborhood and a different vision for life. If this property is left as is, that future generation will ask why this property was not utilized. He said it is his job to balance the needs of County, State, City, current citizens, and future citizens. He said there is no perfect plan and all plans are changeable. The Commission could choose to reject any portion or all of the proposals. However, staff will provide their opinion on what they believe will happen in the future if reinvestment is not allowed. He explained that the principles behind the increased height and the proposed rezones are consistent with current City Ordinances. If the City Council were to choose to change these policies so be it, but any application on the table today will be judged according to the rules in place today.

Mr. Pugsley clarified that Brighton Homes has officially purchased the parcel with the home on the north side of the block and Brighton Homes is under contract to purchase the remaining parcels. He said Brighton Homes is here to stay and assured the public they have listened to all comments and will do their best to create a project that will work for this area.

Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend APPROVAL of the following proposed text amendments:

1. Change the Traditional and City Center Lot Zoning Regulations and related development tables for building heights to match the existing west side standards to allow a 35-foot maximum building height.

Reasons for the action:
a. The Planning Commission finds that there is General Plan policy language that desires the bulking and massing of buildings to facilitate mixed-use development.
b. The Planning Commission finds that the height request better facilitates a mixed-use development pattern.
c. The Planning Commission finds that in general, the lot sizes along Main Street are small and need the extra mass and bulk to achieve a mixed-use pattern.
d. The Planning Commission further finds that since the City Center District is the focal or heart of the corridor, allowing the 35-foot building height in City Center District is also warranted.
e. The Planning Commission finds that the request for 35 feet does not create a conflict on the east side of the street, because the existing R-L District located behind the area already allows for the development of homes with a maximum height of 35 feet.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson.

Commissioner Kjar said he is concerned with the proposed increase in building height and is not sure this is the best idea for this area. He agreed this is a quaint area with smaller homes and he recognized there has been a lot of comments against the building height. He agreed Brighton Homes is one of the better developers around but questioned if there is a better plan for this area. He said he is sensitive to Mr. Obrien and his need and right to sell his property. He also understands the need to plan for future growth.

Commissioner Randall said she is concerned with the blend or transition from Main Street commercial to existing residential. She is concerned the increased building height may be too significant.

Commissioner Johnson said he would like to know more about why there is a difference in building height between the east and the west sides of Main Street. He would like to understand the discussions that took place which lowered the original building height from the 35 feet to 25 feet on the east side.

Commissioner Hirst said she is also concerned with the blend or transition from commercial to the existing residential to the east. She is concerned with the impact this development may have on local schools and traffic. She too would like more information on the original discussions regarding the reduction in building height.

Chair Hirschi agreed more information would be beneficial in making this decision. He too would like to understand why there is a difference in building heights from east to west.

Commissioner Kjar asked if it is possible to graduate the building height from commercial on Main Street down as the development moves toward the existing residential to the east. He questioned if it is possible to allow 35-foot buildings only on Main Streets frontage then diminishing the building height as the development moves eastward. This could possibly create an acceptable transition.

Mr. Snyder said the Commission can direct staff to provide additional information. The Commission can also choose to modify the petition or recommend edits. With additional information the Commission could further review the half-block ratios, transitions, and buffers.

Commissioner Hirst made a motion to TABLE Chair Hirschi’s original motion regarding building heights until the next Planning Commission meeting to be held on February 11, 2015 and to direct staff to bring back additional information for review, including elevation points from east to west, written minutes and history on the decision to lower building heights on the east, and current building heights on Bountiful City’s Main Street. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).

Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to recommend DENIAL of the following proposed text amendments:

1. Any changes to the Floor Area Ratios or Lot Dimensions, as proposed by the petitioner.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).

Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to TABLE the proposed Zone Map Amendment and continue the public hearing until the next Planning Commission meeting to be held on February 11, 2015. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Merrill and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the Planning Commission previously accepted the conceptual site plan for the Park Hills Phase 3 Subdivision. Phase 3 consists of two developed lots and a larger remnant parcel that will not be utilized at this time. The proposed lots are found within the Residential-Low (R-L) Zone and are in harmony with the General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinances. Each lot depicted has adequate street frontage, buildable area and setbacks as required. The street, Rock Manor Drive, has been developed but not dedicated. Rock Manor Drive must be dedicated with the completion of Phase 3. In addition the applicant will be required, per Subdivision Ordinance, to receive conceptual, preliminary, and final site plan approvals from the Planning Commission. Due to confusion of the conceptual plan Lot 2 and Lot 3 are now switched on the plat so Lot 3 is now the remaining parcel.

Mr. Snyder reviewed the conditions set forth during conceptual site plan approval. The majority of the conditions have been met. All conditions will be required during the final site plan approval process. The applicant will still be required to post all necessary bonds as assessed by the City Engineer. The applicant will be required to submit a drainage plan, fire hydrant location, and buildable pad for Lot 1. The City Engineer is concerned with drainage from Lot 2 toward the west. The City Engineer has requested a detention basin for this purpose. Proper easements for each lot, a current title report, and a legal description of the street dedication will all be required during final site plan approval. Finally, the applicant will be required to complete a new 4-foot wide sidewalk along the east side of Rock Manor Drive in front of Lot 1. This will be done after a home is constructed in order to avoid damage during construction and waste of resources. This should not have a negative impact on the community since a bond will be posted and an agreement signed by the applicant regarding the sidewalk.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.

Stephanie Ivie, City Councilwoman, said she is sad to see a good neighbor move, but is excited for him to build a new home on one of the proposed building sites.

Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Randall questioned what will become of the remnant parcel. Mr. Snyder said staff has studied the remnant carefully and there are future development possibilities.

Commissioner Hirst made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the preliminary subdivision plan for the proposed Park Hills Phase 3 Subdivision, located at 2130 North Rock Manor Drive, subject to the following:

Conditions:
1. Lot 2 depicted on the preliminary site plan shall be relabeled as to state: remnant parcel for future development.
2. Lot 3 depicted on the preliminary site plan shall be relabeled as Lot 2.
3. A bond shall be posted for all public infrastructure and utility work to be conducted.
4. An agreement shall be signed with the applicant that they shall be responsible to place the sidewalk on Lot 1 as part of the construction of a new single-family dwelling on the same lot.
5. Lot 1 shall depict a drainage plan and the buildable area as part of the final submittal and shall be reviewed by City staff.
6. Public utility easements on both Lot 1 and 2 shall be found on three sides with the front being 10 feet and two other sides at 7 feet.
7. A detention basin shall be created in the back of Lot 2 to allow water to slowly percolate into the ground and not flow on to adjacent property. This drainage swell shall be review and approved by the City Engineer as part of the final subdivision process.
8. The fire hydrant located on the northwest corner of Lot 1 shall be indicated.
9. Legal descriptions shall be submitted for the street dedication and shall be reviewed as part of the final subdivision process by City staff.
10. A current title report shall be submitted and reviewed by staff as part of the final subdivision process.
11. The applicant shall submit the final subdivision application following all applicable criteria in Chapter 15-4 of the Subdivision Ordinance.

Reasons for the Action (Findings):
1. The preliminary subdivision is in harmony with the General Plan [Section 12-480-52(1)(e)]
2. The new subdivision meets the objectives for development within a Residential-Low Zone [Section 12-30-020(b)(1)].
3. It appears all applicable development standards for development within an R-L Zone have be satisfied [Table 12-32-1].
4. It appears all general requirements for all subdivisions have been satisfied [Chapter 15-5].
5. All applicable standards found in the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to a preliminary subdivision application have been satisfied [Chapter 15-3].

The motion was seconded by Chair Hirschi and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).

Mr. Snyder, Community Development Director, reported the Planning Commission has held some public discussion meetings to assess the possibility of allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as part of the housing options within the city. Generally, these meetings indicated that allowing such housing type might be appropriate, provided sufficient use regulations could be developed. Concerns discussed have included allowing detached ADUs (units constructed separately from the primary dwelling) and aesthetic design standards.

Staff has prepared a draft ordinance using typical standards found throughout many Utah cities. Some provisions have been modified or altered to reflect Centerville’s Zoning Ordinance style; as well as elements that attempt to reflect the characteristics of using ADUs in Centerville City. Mr. Snyder reviewed each section of the draft ordinance with the Commission including termination, design, parking, exemptions, occupancy, etc. Staff believes the proposed draft is consistent with the City’s Moderate Income Housing Element concerning both the use of ADUs and of implementing design standards. The proposed draft includes compatibly elements to maintain neighborhood characteristics including ADUs as subordinate to the primary use, owner occupancy requirements, location and size limitations, and design expectations. The proposed draft also includes parameters, restrictions or limitations to prevent or mitigate impacts to adjacent properties. Such elements provide self-contained on-site needs to minimize off-site conflicts with adjoining properties. Additionally, an ADU use is deemed a conditional use (CUP). A CUP allows the approving authority (i.e. Planning Commission) to review each case to assess the potential impacts and set conditions to mitigate concerns or potential problems.

Mr. Snyder explained as part of any development proposal, from single-family subdivisions to large commercial development, the City has adopted “impact fees.” Impact fees are charged to cover the costs of expanding or sizing utility service infrastructure. Such fees cover items such as water lines and meters, storm drains, fire service, and even for providing parks. Since ADUs may create added demands for some services, it may not always be the case for other such services. The concept of ADUs are to capitalize an opportunity to use existing single-family style developments and associated infrastructure to keep costs down but increase the opportunity to find housing options. Charging a full service impact fee to an ADU may be a dis-incentive and may not be a flawless balance between the actual impact and the end user of an ADU. The Commission and Council need to consider this as part of any decision to allow ADUs in the City.

Commissioner Randall said her biggest concern is parking. This is often the reason a neighbor will report an illegal ADU. She questioned if one additional parking space was adequate for an ADU. Mr. Snyder said the Commission could increase the required parking to 2 spaces, but staff believes it may not be necessary for a maximum 800 square feet dwelling.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.

Dale Engberson said he has read the proposed ADU draft and is accepting of the document. He likes that the parking is behind the setback and believes this will help with alleviate parking concerns. He likes that the draft requires ADUs to have their own meters but that both meters must be in the property owner’s name. He believes if ADUs are done right they are a benefit to the community.

Stephanie Ivie, City Councilwoman, said she is glad to see the ADU issue come to this point. She agrees ADUs should be legal with set parameters. She is concerned the proposed draft may be a bit more restrictive than she would like. She does appreciate the owner occupancy requirement.

Lee Skabelund said legalizing ADUs has been a long time coming. He said ADUs can work out nicely for a community and provide cohesiveness when done right. He said ADUs provide housing options for citizens who do not want to leave their large homes but need supplemental income to keep it and citizens who would like a smaller more reasonable place to live or elderly who do not want to live in a facility. He said ADUs need to have their own parking and entrance and separate heating, bathroom, kitchen and fire protection. He said ADUs increase diversity which keeps a community healthy.

Chair Hirschi made a motion for the Planning Commission to TABLE this matter and the public hearing until the Planning Commission meeting to be held on February 25, 2015. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hirst and passed by unanimous vote (6-0).